I guess the real issue might be that the treason is being committed in the halls of government, and is the entity we're in the habit of calling "The U.S." truly the union that was founded, or even a legal entity anymore. Except by the decree of the very group that has, over a period of decades, systematically disassembled it?

Admittedly, I have little or no patriotic fervor, at least not for what now stands.

__________________In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. ~Buddha

Stupid is the most notoriously incurable and contagious disease known to mankind. If you find yourself in close proximity to someone infected with stupid, walk away as soon as said infection is noted.

There are few things more nauseating than pure obedience. ~ Kvothe

***8206;"silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation."
— Rumi
Be a god. Know when to shut up.

Peacefully leaving is currently illegal so you can either do an ammendment or go by force. Trying it by force of course is treason. Talking about it isn't, but given both the history and current ability to leave, its pushing the line.

Quote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Now, is the country exactly what it was 2000 years ago? No. But when you start asking specifics about what should be rolled back or abolished you start getting a lot of blank looks. If many of the changes were made for a reason and there is no real support for undoing those (look at Ron Paul, he may be right, but not does not get a lot of votes) what exactly are you going to change?

The idea of session sucks. We Canadians have to deal with this periodically. Quebec has a vocal component.. much larger than .33%.. that wants to leave. They are equally unrealistic.

Would they keep crown land? What about the native population? (they have already said they want to stay Canadian) But my fave is, so what about your portion of the national debt? Are you going to take that with out when you go too?

They also think businesses would all stay.

The really scary thing is how close it came
"The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of 49.42% "Yes" to 50.58% "No"."

Unlike with Texas it would really hurt Canada as a nation as it would force people to go through 'another country' to get to and from the Atlantic provinces.

But your neighbours to the north feel for those who have to deal with people who want to hurt the nation and have no realistic plans on how to survive if they leave.

But people have tried that. I've seen no sign this was a hoax: people wanted to buy enough land in NH or TX to move people in and toss out nearly all the laws. What was on the list?

Quote:

The Free Town Project intends to liberate either a New Hampshire Town, or a Western County, by moving in enough Libertarians to control the local Government and remove oppressive Regulations (such as Planning & Zoning, and Building Code requirements) and stop enforcement of Laws prohibiting Victimless Acts among Consenting Adults, such as Dueling, Gambling, Incest, Price-Gouging, Cannibalism, and Drug Handling.

We also intend to ensure that the Town Police are never allowed to waste valuable Town resources (taken from the residents as Taxes, AT THE POINT OF A GUN) to oppress our residents by the investigation or enforcement of violations of Laws that punish Truancy ("Compulsory Schooling"), Drug Trafficking, Prostitution, Obscenity, Organ Trafficking, BumFights, and other Victimless "Crimes".

Peacefully leaving is currently illegal so you can either do an ammendment or go by force. Trying it by force of course is treason. Talking about it isn't, but given both the history and current ability to leave, its pushing the line.

Now, is the country exactly what it was 2000 years ago? No. But when you start asking specifics about what should be rolled back or abolished you start getting a lot of blank looks. If many of the changes were made for a reason and there is no real support for undoing those (look at Ron Paul, he may be right, but not does not get a lot of votes) what exactly are you going to change?

one current scotus justice has already said that peacefully is the only way that is legal.
the basis of his opinion is probably the original constitution giving congress SOLE authority to dispose of US terrritory.
talking about leaving is a dangerous line to walk, because the moment you actually ADVOCATE & suggest to others that they oppose lawful authority you are now committing sedition.
the petitions do NOT actually suggest anyone oppose govt authority they simply ask to change that authority.

Dekka
losing TX would be devastating to the USA. it is the second largest GDP in the country & it is negative user of federal tax dollars, that is it sends out more tax dollars to the fed than it gets back from them. due to deficit spending only about a dozen states can say that. a very few of the states using more fed cash than it sends in could improve their economy to offset the loss of federal dollars.